« South Africa To Recognize Same Sex Marriage

Home
Oregon Woman Convicted of Acting Insufficiently Traumatized »

Ayotte, Pharmacists, and Alito Friday Round-Up

Posted by Pseudo-Adrienne | December 2nd, 2005

This post was removed by request of the author.

| This entry was posted by Pseudo-Adrienne and is filed under Abortion & reproductive rights, Anti-Contraceptives/EC zaniness, Supreme Court Issues. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

12 Responses to “Ayotte, Pharmacists, and Alito Friday Round-Up”

  1. Aaron V. Writes:
    December 2nd, 2005 at 3:20 pm

    Those pharmacists shouldn’t just be suspended - they should be fired.

    Could you imagine a Mormon clerk refusing to sell pop because it has caffeine? Or a Muslim clerk refusing to sell alcohol in a grocery store? Or a non-smoker like me refusing to sell cigarettes? They’d be canned in an instant.

    Jesus freaks get special rights in many instances - hopefully not in this. Two cheers for Walgreens…

    This comment was written by Aaron V..
    Report this comment to the moderators
  2. John Howard Writes:
    December 2nd, 2005 at 3:40 pm

    What makes the New Hampshire case so controversial is that it does not include an exception for the health of the mother

    Wouldn’t the fact that the teen’s life is threatened make notifying the parents even more of an imperitive? I would think a law that required parental notification when any minor is seeking a medical procedure because their life or health of the teen would make sense - that’s when the teen needs their parents most, and the parents should certainly know about it.

    This comment was written by John Howard.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  3. alsis39 Writes:
    December 2nd, 2005 at 6:22 pm

    Of course, there are cases in which it’s notifying the parent that itself would threaten the girl’s life. But I guess we won’t talk about that.

    This comment was written by alsis39.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  4. john howard Writes:
    December 3rd, 2005 at 12:33 am

    Yeah, that should be the exception, but it isn’t what they seem to care about.

    This comment was written by john howard.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  5. Echidne of the snakes Writes:
    December 3rd, 2005 at 3:34 am

    Wouldn’t the fact that the teen’s life is threatened make notifying the parents even more of an imperitive? I would think a law that required parental notification when any minor is seeking a medical procedure because their life or health of the teen would make sense - that’s when the teen needs their parents most, and the parents should certainly know about it.

    It is a question of time. If something happens in the middle of the night and the teen is taken to a hospital there may be no time to find a parent or a judge to get around the parental requirement. Though the proposed law does have an exception for life-threatening causes.

    This comment was written by Echidne of the snakes.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  6. john howard Writes:
    December 3rd, 2005 at 11:24 am

    Then they should say the law needs to allow for the notification to be done after the procedure if there is an emergency situation.

    But I bet there are other laws that could get in the way of saving someone’s life if they were scrupulously followed, and we don’t call them unconstitutional, like speeding, or driving without a license, or breaking and entering, in order to save someone’s life. Does every law need a “life” exception? Why are abortion laws different ?

    And what about the right to self-defense? We already say it is OK to kill someone if they were going to kill you and it was ’self-defense’? Why is it any different if the person is threatening your life unintentionally? Are you supposed to let them kill you just because they don’t mean to be killing you?

    This comment was written by john howard.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  7. RonF Writes:
    December 4th, 2005 at 6:26 pm

    I don’t have a problem with a law allowing a medical procedure to be performed on a minor whose life is at risk if the risk is such that there is no time to contact the parents. But:

    1) unless there is a very strong indication that notifiying the parents would risk the child’s life, the parents should be notified afterwards, as they would be after any other medical procedure, and

    2) the same standards that would be applied in any other medical procedure should be applied in this case as to whether or not there’s time to contact the parents first.

    The objective should be to take the procedures necessary to save the child’s life, not to take the procedures necessary to enable the child to deceive or avoid conflict with her parents.

    This comment was written by RonF.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  8. RonF Writes:
    December 5th, 2005 at 9:46 am

    Seems to me that these pharmacists have the right to refuse to dispense medications that they think are morally repulsive. It also seems to me that the pharmacy has the right to fire them for that.

    This comment was written by RonF.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  9. CG Writes:
    December 5th, 2005 at 6:38 pm

    I’m curious as to how performing an abortion on a minor without parental consent ever became legal in the first place. Don’t all medical procedures require parental consent? Your kid needs consent to have his/her ears pierced.

    Having said that, I watched the press conference after the case was argued and both sides seem to agree. If a girl’s health is in immediate danger and she needs an abortion, go ahead and do it. According to the attorney general of NH, the doctor won’t be prosecuted. Really. She promises. So why don’t they just put that in the law? Why did NH purposely leave out an emergency health provision.? I understand they didn’t want just any old health claim to be good enough to bypass parental consent, but we’re talking emergencies here.

    This comment was written by CG.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  10. RonF Writes:
    December 6th, 2005 at 10:04 am

    I’m curious as to how performing an abortion on a minor without parental consent ever became legal in the first place.

    I would not call myself an expert on this, so if anyone else cares to comment, go ahead (not that you need my invitation …). But my impression is that the proponents successfully painted a picture of a) how the young lady might be in danger from her parents if they were to know of her pregnancy, and b) that it would be a horrible violation of the young woman’s rights if the parents were to withhold permission.

    This comment was written by RonF.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  11. CG Writes:
    December 6th, 2005 at 7:20 pm

    Thanks for the answer. I’m definitely pro-choice and agree that there has to be protection for minors from possibly abusive or overly religious (for lack of a better term) parents. But it seems to me that the norm should be parental consent with exceptions in place, though I’m not sure how that would work in real life. I guess in all practicality, most kids will tell their parents if they don’t fear their parents freaking out.

    This comment was written by CG.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  12. Mary Writes:
    December 8th, 2005 at 7:07 am

    “I’m curious as to how performing an abortion on a minor without parental consent ever became legal in the first place. Don’t all medical procedures require parental consent? Your kid needs consent to have his/her ears pierced.”

    Your kid doesn’t need your consent to get prenatal care, obstetric care, midwife services, etc.

    This comment was written by Mary.
    Report this comment to the moderators

Leave a Reply

If you have questions about the moderation policies here, please read this post. Short version: treat other posters with respect.

(Need to know how to create blockquotes and links, i.e., linked text?)

If your submitted comment fails to appear, without even an error or "waiting for moderation" message, then our spam-blocking program may have blocked your comment by mistake. When this happens, please contact the moderators right away so we can rescue your comment!